Jump to content

Talk:Jeopardy!/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Format of questions and answers

I don't understand the reasoning behind the question-and-answer format, and the article does not seem to explain it. Here is a typical example:

Host: "In 1908 in this city U.S. flag-bearer Ralph Rose caused controversy by not lowering the flag when passing the king."

Contestant: "What is London?"

The first sentence isn't a grammatically correct answer to the question. Most of the questions and responses that I've seen seem equally illogical. Is there some secret ingredient that I'm missing, or some piece of knowledge that makes it all make sense? (Oh, by the way, I had never heard of this show before all the recent news stories, so I have no background knowledge of it.) 109.153.232.195 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: I have just noticed a related discussion above. I completely agree with the poster who says "It's just that for someone introduced to the show now, it seems to make no sense whatsoever as the forced-question format is nonsensical for a large number of questions." Has anyone tried to address this in the article? 109.153.232.195 (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Your question was posed on this talk page very recently. See my first response in the What is Jeopardy? section, above. When the show premiered in 1964, it followed the "answer-question" format much more rigidly. Over the years as audiences adapted to the format its stringencies were relaxed and yes, now, as you point out, many responses would not be sensible "questions" to their clue "answers". The example you bring up is much less illustrative of this than some of the wordplay categories, anagram categories, and "Pavlovian" categories. The answer you pose really does define London in some small way and could serve as a legitimate if unorthodox answer to the question "What is London?" Robert K S (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I didn't notice at first that it had already been discussed. I have added an epxlanation to the article. It is very confusing for people who have never seen the show before; it's hard to make any sense of what's going on. I came here exactly to find that out, so I think the article needs to address the issue. Please move or reword as you see fit (but please don't just remove it). 86.181.203.216 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Even though, Robert K S is correct that the "answer-question" format is less rigid than in the past, his statement cannot be used as a citable source. Doing so would probably constitute original research. There should be some credible source for this information that we can cite. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

66 vs. 67-episode count disparity

The article's infobox states there is a 66-game disparity in the episode count, but the Jeopardy!#1984–present, syndicated section states there is a 67-game disparity. Which is correct? Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Where does the infobox say there is a 66-game disparity? Read the episode status section explanation, which is correct. What exactly is the problem? Robert K S (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The infobox has <!--Do not edit this number without reading the episode status section; the 66-game disparity MUST be accounted for.--> throughout the num_episodes field. "Read" the infobox and eliminate the attitude. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
As explained in the episode status section, Watson was 3 episodes but 2 games. Why say "Read the infobox", when what you mean is "read the hidden comments"? Robert K S (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The original question was clear in its presentation. Please stop the WP:BATTLE mentality and provide the correct answer in order to properly clarify what is presented in the article. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Are things clear for you now, or can I provide further assistance? Robert K S (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nightmares and Dreamscapes

Also missed out of this article is the references from Stephen King's short story 'The Moving Finger' in his collection 'Nightmares and Dreamscapes'. In the save vein as the story mentioned below, the show is key in the telling of the story. The protagonist talks about the show almost all the way through the story, and it ends with him saying "Final Jeopardy, Officer. How much do you wish to wager?" It is a clear reference and deserves to be part of this article. KnuXles (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


Jeopardy! in The Netherlands?!

I don't know of any Jeopardy! version on the Dutch television in the Netherlands. Yes, quizzes of course, but nothing specifically like this. Why is the country colored yellow in the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdruiter (talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Error in "Tournaments and events"???

It says "The IBM Challenge, aired February 14–16, 2011, featured IBM's Watson computer facing off against two former Jeopardy! champions, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, in a two-game match played over three shows.[29] This was the first man-vs.-machine competition in Jeopardy!'s history.[30] Watson locked up the first game and the match to win $1 million, which IBM divided between two charities. Jennings, who won $300,000 for second place, and Rutter, who won the $200,000 third-place prize, both pledged to donate half their winnings to charity.[31] The competition brought the show its highest ratings since the Ultimate Tournament of Champions.[32]"

In NYT [[1]] it reads "The final tally was $77,147 to Mr. Jennings’s $24,000 and Mr. Rutter’s $21,600."

How come?? --83.46.109.86 (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The final scores from the two-game match determined who won the $1 million, $300k and $200k prizes, similar to the finals of other tournaments in which the combined two-day score determines how the total purse is divided. Sottolacqua (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article to be less sexist by replacing the infamous "him or her" with a neutral "them" in the sentence which was originally written as "(...) and gives him or her (...)" Marceki111 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is late, but "him or her" is hardly sexist, and is actually more grammatically correct than using "them" to refer to a single individual. JTRH (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Is Jeopardy Rigged?"

The April 30, 1993 issue of the Enquirer had a story based on Harry Eisenberg's book to the effect that the boards were rigged by George Bosburgh to favor women contestants. That would certainly fit my own experience, which took place during the years when that is alleged to have taken place. The 1993 version of that book, Inside Jeopardy!: What Really Goes on at TV's Top Quiz Show, is the source of that allegation, and it was omitted from the 1995 edition (I have both).

Shouldn't this controversy be addressed in the article? It goes far beyond rumor. Solarbuddy (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A tabloid magazine is not a reliable source. Your own experience is WP:OPINION and WP:SELFPUB. What are the specific details mentioned in the 1993 edition of Inside Jeopardy!? Sottolacqua (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Click on the link in my paragraph and see for yourself. It is all spelled out in Eisenberg's own words in his 1993 book. Solarbuddy (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Web-accessible edition of the book? The fact that you quote it on your own Website doesn't make it verifiable (sorry). JTRH (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Uhhhhh, no. The web accessible edition from Google does not include a preview of the book. Unless someone has the actual book itself, we may not include it. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have the book (both editions). IMO the Eisenberg controversy is not of sufficient impact to merit coverage in this article--it would basically be one sentence of trivia. It didn't result in a standards & practices investigation or a major shakeup--at least, none that was publicized. Robert K S (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Figures need a fix

Jeopardy!#Returning champions states that "Ken Jennings ...amassed a total of $2,520,700" while the same section is accompanied by a picture subtitled "... Ken Jennings ... won a total of $3,172,700 on the show ...". Obviously, only (at most) one of these contradictory figures can be correct.

--87.175.62.2 (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

He won $2,520,700 in his initial appearance and an additional $652,000 in later tournaments. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's find a theme song composer source

Instead of changing, undoing, redoing, and reverting changes to the Theme music composer section of the infobox, let's instead find a source for these claims. If we can't find solid references, then the controvercial unsourced information will have to be deleted altogether—a situation I'd like to avoid, if possible. Let's back up our claims, everyone, and keep it civil. —LinkTiger (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

Format of questions

Hi, per previous discussions

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeopardy!/Archive_3#Format_of_questions_and_answers

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Jeopardy!/Archive_2#What_is_Jeopardy.3F

the format of questions and answers in this game is confusing to people unfamiliar with it, and is not adequately explained in the article. I made this edit, but it was immediately reverted even though "probably true". Please can we try to agree some suitable wording to explain this. 86.160.221.234 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

PS, see the linked piece at http://theangrytiki.com/2009/06/jeopardy-is-really-really-stupid.html for a list of examples of exactly what the problem is, and ample evidence that the stock explanation that the contestants supply a question to fit a given answer just does not hold water. 86.160.221.234 (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's already a section discussing what you're trying to accomplish: Jeopardy!#Phrasing and judging. "Griffin had originally intended for the phrasing to be grammatically correct (e.g., not accepting any phrasing other than 'Who is…' for a person), but after finding that grammatical correction slowed the game down, he decided that the show should instead accept any correct response that was in question form."
The same response is provided in your second link to archived discussions. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, your link to theangrytiki does not work. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh ... the link works fine for me (but I do not see the "same response" provided in the archived discussions. What are you referring to?) The section you refer to in the article does not really shed any light on the issue, since "Who is George Washington?" / "The Father of Our Country; he didn't really chop down a cherry tree" is a feasible question/answer pair (just about). I'm talking about the case when the question/answer pairs are apparently nonsensical. Below are three examples, copied from that link that you can't see. I just cannot understand the thinking or reasoning behind it, and this is what I feel the article should try to explain.
Q. Who is Alice In Wonderland?
A. When the Mad Hatter says, "No room!", you retort "There's plenty of room!" as you're playing this little girl
Q. What is 'Frasier'?
A. David Hyde Pierce on this sitcom: "Her lips were saying 'no', but her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
Q. What is 'Seinfeld'?
A. Kramer, on this show, "I'm taping Canadian Parliament, you know, on C-SPAN."
86.160.221.234 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

From Jeopardy!#Phrasing and judging: "[Griffin] decided that the show should instead accept any correct response that was in question form."

The "answers" are not regularly referred to "answers" on the show; Trebek refers to them as "clues." Because of this, and based upon the detail in the phrasing and judging section, you can determine which response in question form would be ruled correct.

A. When the Mad Hatter says, "No room!", you retort "There's plenty of room!" as you're playing this little girl
Q. Who is Alice In Wonderland?
A. David Hyde Pierce on this sitcom: "Her lips were saying 'no', but her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
Q. What is Frasier?
A. Kramer, on this show, "I'm taping Canadian Parliament, you know, on C-SPAN."
Q. What is Seinfeld?

This edit that you made is essentially a duplication of what is already in Jeopardy!#Phrasing and judging; you just happened to place it in another section. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Who holds the record?

The "Returning Champions" section says Ken Jennings "holds the all-time records for total game show earnings." Doesn't that honor belong to Brad Rutter? Brauden (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Rutter currently holds the all-time winnings record for only Jeopardy!, while Jennings holds the all-time record for American game shows in general. - Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Friday, November 16, 2012, 01:30 UTC.

Considering promotion to GA status

I have been considering nominating this article for promotion to "Good article" status for the following reasons:

  • It is an article about a very notable and well-known American game show, which is likely one of the most notable programs of its genre.
  • The article balances acceptable primary and secondary sources, citing over 100 different resources which include books, newspaper and magazine articles, accepted Internet resources, press releases, and even the episodes themselves, used where applicable. It also avoids citing unreliable sources such as blogs, fan-sites, copyright-violating YouTube videos, other Wikipedia articles, tabloid publications, and IMDb and TV.com.
  • I feel that the article's contents lack any shred of bias, with fan-cruft and original research kept to a bare minimum.
  • The article respects copyright laws as there are no direct quotations from copyright-protected materials, except where such is necessary in the context of the article. Also, non-free imagery is avoided except for one image showing the evolution of the syndicated version's set over the years, and even that one image has a detailed fair use rationale, per policy.
  • The article is broad in its coverage of the show. It covers all key information about the show except for its complete broadcast history, audition process, and international versions, all of which have been spun off into their own appropriately-named child articles.
  • The article respects the rules of the English language and the guidelines set forth in the Manual of Style, using correct spelling and grammar. It is very cohesive and comprehensive, and all material present in the article is properly organized.

I want to consider whether other editors feel the same way about this article in its current state as I do now before I decide to nominate it for GA status. --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Thursday, April 11, 2013, 16:55 UTC.

I agree. The article is in much better shape now, its sources are reliable, and I think it's ready to be nominated for GA status --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Image of sets

Do we really need to show both the 2002 set and its 2006 revision in the image of sets? After all, the 2006 set was just a minor revision to the 2002 set adapted for HD. I propose we remove the 2006 revision from the image and add in the 1985-1991 set. ANDROS1337TALK 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeopardy!/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 04:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Review comments

I have taken care of all the dead links in this article. For the majority I used Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine", but for two links for which I could not retrieve archived versions, I simply eliminated their dead links, but retained the citations themselves. For those paragraphs that lacked citations when the article was quickfailed, I have added citations to such paragraphs.

I saw that one of the problems that led the article to be quickfailed was the article being too long. To do this, I condensed the "Merchandise" section to a basic summary (while simultaneously restoring the child article for merchandising, which I had unknowingly merged into the parent article months ago without allowing for discussion, on the grounds that it was not entirely comprised of original research - the Jeopardy! video games, for instance, are notable, as they had been discussed by a reliable source: IGN). I also removed unsourced cultural references from the "Portrayals in other media" section, and made various other edits and modifications. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) 04:04, Monday, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Too Many Names Suggestion

Seems like the naming of all of the producers and writers and directors etc... is a bit overwhelming and really harms the flow of the entry. Does anyone else think this is a bit of a distraction? Considered editing it down, but wanted to see what folks thought first. Andrew B (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Having just looked at the article for the first time, I was just about to say this. With the greatest possible respect to, picking an example, Andrew Shepard Price is that he is / has been a writer, notable? If it is, why doesn't he have his own article? Repeat for everyone else.
That there's a team of them, fine. But if people want names, they're presumably in the credits or the show's website. Lovingboth (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In response to your concerns, I just trimmed the "Production Staff" section to remove insignificant individuals. ---- SethAllen623 (discussion) Sunday, April 27, 2014, 18:50 UTC.

Format section

Apart from the original insistence on correct grammar ('Who is..'), the article doesn't mention any rules about what's an acceptable answer. Presumably there are some. What stops 'What is one more than 5,279?' being accepted as an acceptable response to the original question about 5,280. It is just as correct as 'How many feet are there in a mile?' Lovingboth (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeopardy!/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 17:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'm BrandonWu, and I'll be the reviewer for this article. I hope to work through the GA review in a time period for 7 days, and I'll get the review started very soon! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 17:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that there are two reviews other than this one. Here are the links: the first review, and the second review.


Review

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    See below for a prose review!
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Lead is good, and rest of the article does follow MOS
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    See below for a source review as well!
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Major aspects covered!
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Images provided are good.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

See below for the Source and Prose reviews. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 18:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

After further comments on the nom's talk page, the article is deemed GA! :D Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Prose Review

Source Review

Verifiability of this article

I am considering preparing this article for its third GA nomination, and I urge all responsible editors to check the verifiability and sources of this article's content one last time before I can resubmit this. If anyone has the Trebek and Barsocchini book, Harris's book, Richmond's book, Young's book, Jennings' book, or either of Eisenberg's books, I urge you all — READ THROUGH THESE BOOKS IN THEIR ENTIRETY and if any of the facts presented in this article is indeed presented in any of these books, CITE THE APPLICABLE PAGES, because I do not want ANY gameplay, personnel, production, or broadcast information presented without referencing. Some information about gameplay rules was possibly added in by anonymous IPs who do not understand or care about our verifiability or reliable sources policies, and I want to ensure that the article's verifiability is on the same level as that of the Wheel of Fortune article, which is itself a GA. --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Saturday, February 8, 2014, 03:29 U.T.C.

I am busy with other things through the rest of the week, but I will try to go through the article over the weekend and see what needs to be done (I will note right away that there is a clarification needed tag at the end of the Winnings Records section). I'll also admit that I did not know as much about GA criteria when I encouraged you to give the article its second nomination as I know now, so I'll try to give it a more thorough look this time. However, I do not have any of the books which you mentioned in your original post above, so I'm afraid I cannot help you with that, but I will do my best to review everything else before its third GA nomination. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, but stuff came up for me today, and tomorrow is Mother's Day, but I WILL get to it at some point in the near future. A quick household search also shows that I actually have Richmond's book, which should provide additional help. Thanks for your patience, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are some pre-GAN comments:

  • Neither page 90 nor 160 (refs 28 and 29) mention anything about winnings limits.
  • Page 188 mentions nothing about the clip show (ref 121).
  • In the "Special Editions" section (part of the "Broadcast" section), it says, "with Michael McKean as the grand prizewinner". Isn't "prizewinner" two words?
  • "In the "First two rounds" section under the "Format" section, it says, "The contestant at the leftmost lectern from the viewer's perspective selects the first clue in the Jeopardy! round from any position on the game board." That contestant selects first because they are the champion, right? Is this worth mentioning?
  • I would double-check the external links using the tool given in the 2nd GA review section of the talk page. That has been a problem in the past.
  • Again, there is a clarification needed tag in the "Winnings records" section.
    • That was for the "lowest Final Jeopardy! score ever" claims which were once in the article, but which I have removed for being unverifiable against any appropriate source.--SethAllen623 (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I will leave it to the GA reviewer to go more in depth, but these are the only minor issues I've seen so far. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

New Set

Could someone upload a picture of the new 2013 30th anniversary set. Thanks. 174.23.193.1 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Needed. The set from 2013 was a significant remodeling of the 2009 set. There is a fairly major difference in between the sets. Tom the Bergeron (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Alex expected to retire in 2016"

I have removed two unsourced statements in the article suggesting that Alex is "expected" to retire in 2016. It may be that his contract extends through 2016 (or part of that year), but any speculation about his retirement is only that--speculation--and does not belong as a weasel-worded assertion about a vague "expectation." It has been reported that in his remarks at the conclusion of the Battle of the Decades tournament, producer Harry Friedman stated in no uncertain terms that the job is Alex's as long as he wants it, and Alex Trebek has not as of yet stated any intention to retire. If the statement is to return, it should be properly sourced and should state who is doing the expecting. My feeling, however, is that the statement should not return, absent some official announcement, as it provides no accurate factual detail to the reader. Robert K S (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Farrell left the show in 2006, and Cannon in 2008."

I have to wonder about the accuracy of this statement in the Clue Crew section. Cheryl clues continued to air regularly into October 2008. (One anomalously aired as recently as January, 2011, but we can discount that as an outlier--a leftover.) I doubt the show's backlog of Cheryl recorded clues allowed them to keep airing them for an additional two years if she left the Clue Crew in 2006. Furthermore, Cheryl recorded clues of the Walking with Dinosaurs exhibition, which didn't begin to tour North America until 2007. Furthermore, this 2007 press release indicates that Cheryl "return[ed] for her seventh season," which would have been Season 24 (being that the Clue Crew was introduced in Season 18), and Season 24 ran from 2007-2008. Cheryl's resume states that she was with the show for seven years, and that would have been 2001-2008. Still further, I have a clear memory of discussing Cheryl's departure from the show on the official Jeopardy! Message Board back in October 2008, which memory is corroborated by the Internet Archive backup of the message board index from that time (although I think the thread has been obliterated). I think it's pretty clear that Cheryl was with the show until at least the end of 2007, and maybe didn't leave until sometime in 2008. Jon Cannon's clues continued to air regularly into June 2009, but I suppose that doesn't rule out a late 2008 departure date for Jon. As for Cheryl, I think the evidence shows 2006 is clearly wrong. Robert K S (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Her resume doesn't have start/end dates for time appearing on the show. J-Archive as a fansite doesn't have the WP:N to meet WP:V. Message board content that cannot be proven to have been posted by someone affiliated with production of the program and not simply a fan message does not meet WP:V.
The memo does say "seventh season" but there is no confirmation of when she stopped appearing on the program. Since the memo says "returns for her seventh season" but does not confirm Farrell appeared for the entire season, I changed the notation for her to read "Farrell continued to appear on the program through 2007." However, the memo is not dated and is not stored on a website affiliated with the production of the program. Also, there is no copyright information on the memo, so if another editor feels WP:V for this document can be challenged, remove the source and the comment about her appearing through 2007. AldezD (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what your post is trying to say. Are you contending that Cheryl was no longer with the show as of 2006? The remarks about the J! Archive are immaterial; there is no question that Cheryl continued to appear through the end of the 2007-2008 24th season. The show itself is evidence of that, and the Archive is merely a record of the show. She also likely had some leftover clues aired in Season 25, 2008-2009. The statement that "Farrell continued to appear on the program through 2007" is I suppose not technically inaccurate, but gives no useful information since she also continued to appear on the program through much of 2008. Just what does the Norman Chance book say and how is that book supposed to be believed over the clear contradictory evidence? Furthermore, why would you edit the content away from the supposed teaching of Chance but still not edit it to give a fully accurate statement? Cheryl was still appearing on the show regularly through 2008. Robert K S (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Use Template:Cite episode as a reference if she appeared on episodes after 2007, or another WP:V source that provides acceptable detail. J-Archive has been noted as an unacceptable source in two previous discussions (1, 2). AldezD (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
What exactly does Chance say? Robert K S (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Winners with $1

I'm puzzled by this: "Only three contestants on pre-2002 episodes of the Trebek version won a game with the lowest amount possible ($1)." I'm guessing that the "pre-2002" distinction is because of the 2002 change where runners-up now receive at least $1,000, but I don't see why that's relevant to the matter of the winner's score. Are there post-2002 episodes where the winner won with only a dollar? If nobody knows, I'd recommend changing it to just say "At least three contestants on the Trebek version have won a game with the lowest amount possible ($1)." Or am I missing some other reason for the pre-2002 distinction? Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The three episodes are sourced, so I agree with your suggestion of changing "Only three contestants on pre-2002 episodes of the Trebek version won a game" to your quote above, but consider adding "Since 1983" to the start of the sentence since there is no evidence a champion did or did not finish with $1 on a Fleming-hosted episode. The $1,000 minimum does not apply to the winner of each game—it is the consolation prize for non-winning contestants. AldezD (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

3 November 2014 revisions

I just made a bunch of revisions to the article. Most of my changes were either minor rewording of the text, or rearranging the information in what seemed to me a more logical manner. I did very little adding or subtracting of information. I've described my rationale for some of my more significant changes below; my intention for any other changes I made can be assumed to be improvement to the article's clarity or aesthetics, or occasionally removing what seemed to be trivial detail. I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes.

Changes:

  1. Changing "With over 6,000 episodes aired as of May 2011" to just "With over 6,000 episodes aired": There will always have been over 6,000 episodes aired. And anyone can look at the citation to see when this info was gathered. Including that date just serves to make the article appear outdated.
  2. Removing GSN and TV Guide references from lede: these didn't seem significant enough to include in an already lengthy lede. The rest of the lede establishes that it's a highly acclaimed show.
  3. Moving tournament rules to their own Gameplay subsection: It seemed much clearer and cleaner to describe the regular game and then mention the variations, rather than interrupting the regular game description to interject how each concept might vary in a tournament. Especially when the tournament structure hasn't even been described at that point in the article, and (before I edited it) there was no full explanation anywhere in the article about how contestants progressed from quarter-finals to semi-finals and finals, making the asides about rules changes in those situations even more confusing and helpful.
  4. Removing paragraph about broadcast history of the American version in Canada: I don't see why this is so significant that it needs to be described in lengthy detail.
  5. Removing paragraph about show numbering: Ditto. I'm hard-pressed to understand why the average reader would be interested in this.
  6. Adding Cliff Clavin's "kitchen" response: This is such a famous scene, I felt like the actual quote should be included here.
  7. I moved "Earnings Records" out of "Gameplay" because it doesn't have anything to do with how the game is played (and I retitled it "Record holders" because not all the records are for high earnings).
  8. I moved "Conception" out of "Production" because it doesn't have anything to do with the show's production process.
  9. I moved "Special editions" out of "Broadcast" because it doesn't have anything to do with how the show is broadcast.
  10. In general, I tried to rearrange the information more logically: Here's how the game is played. Here's how it was invented, how it is produced, how it's broadcast, and how it's received. Here's how it gets tweaked from time to time. Here's other tertiary information. That's what I was going for.

Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Limits on winnings

I don't understand the following sentence: "The total cash winnings of the daily syndicated version's champions were originally limited to $75,000, but this limit was increased to $200,000 at the start of the 14th syndicated season in 1997." I cut this in good faith and it has been reverted. I see three problems with this sentence:

1. Correct me if I'm wrong but in the discussion above for preparing the article for GA nomination, someone asks if this sentence can can be verified. Another editor writes "I merely made a guess." Another answers, "Richmond dismisses the winnings limits altogether." Yet this sentence remains in the otherwise Good article.

2. If pre-1997 winnings were limited to $75,000, how does one explain how Frank Spangenberg won $102,000 in Season 6? And he's not alone. See this screenshot File:Jeopardywinnersscreenshot2002.png, taken from [2] (contestants > winners list).

3. The claim is unverifiable from the source, unless someone can present the video of this episode.

I summarized this in my edit summary when I removed the sentence. Please explain why the edit was reverted. Thank you. PorkHeart (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's presumably verifiable, just not verified. Maybe we should tag this section with {{verify}} in case someone can get a copy of the episode or an alternate source. That said, if it was really added based on a guess, I'd say we should just cull it. That seems likely to be the case, given that the source for the fact that limits on total winnings being removed is based entirely on this press release, which arguably refers only to the end of the 5-game limit (which effectively limited to total regular-game winnings to $max_score*5), and not any sort of individual winnings' limits. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It's possible that the limit was for single-game winnings, and the on-air remarks were misunderstood. I feel that the sourcing is weak enough that the sentence should be removed. Frank Spangenberg and his winnings are well-known enough among fans that this sentence creates confusion. PorkHeart (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Forgive my tardiness to the discussion, but better late than never, I guess. SethAllen623 is probably more knowledgeable than me when it comes to this particular game show, so perhaps Seth can find an alternate source. However, until then, I believe the sentence being removed does not have a negative impact on the article, although perhaps WP:AGF should be considered as well. Did Trebek announce that rule on air? Who knows, I've never seen that episode. But if he did, then the sentence is certainly verified. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
See item #1 in the original posting. The persistence of the sentence is weird and its origins unclear, especially since Spangenberg and others who have won more that $75,000 in the '80s and '90s are well known. At j-archive, the top of the page for episode 2986 says only : "First game of Season 14 (1997-1998). New theme and 'Think!' music. Microphones on contestants' podiums removed." No mention of a change in rules. The sentence should stay out unless someone actually can track down audio or video from the episode. PorkHeart (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Spangenberg has to donate anything over $75,000 to charity, and J! Archive is not an acceptable source. That being said, I agree with you in terms of believing that the sentence is not vital for the article to be at GA status. We'll see if Seth chimes in at all with a source, but until then, I'm fine with it the way it is now. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Harry Eisenberg discusses the $75,000 barrier rule on p. 256 of the first edition of his book. Bob Blake was the first to exceed it with $82,501 in winnings, the excess $7,501 donated to Oxfam of Canada. Spangenberg donated his excess $47,597 to the Sisters of Charity for repair of their Manhattan hospice. Robert K S (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

7000th show

In this edit, the article's infobox was changed to add an unreferenced comment that the 7,000th episode aired 6 February 2014. However, an ABC news press release gives 13 June 2014 as the 6,829th episode of the version that began in 1984. Since this link clearly shows an episode count and meets WP:V, please do not alter the episode count in the infobox without including a proper source. Also, please do not manually adjust episode counts accounting for a purported disparity based upon sources by authors Richmond or Eisenberg, since manually adjusting a sourced figure provided in an earlier reference does not meet WP:V. AldezD (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If this is to be a productive discussion, let's first agree that it is important to be clear, and to be clear, it's important to use adequate terminology. You allege that "the article's infobox was changed to add an unreferenced comment that the 7,000th episode aired 6 February 2014". However, this is not what the footnote I proposed stated. "7,000th episode" is different from "Show #7000" (which is also different from the 7,000th game played, but let's not complicate things needlessly for now). "7,000th episode" refers to the 7,000th original show produced, a number which excludes reruns. "Show #7000" refers to the show assigned the number 7,000 by the show's producers. These are not the same thing (and more importantly for our discussion, there exists no reliable source that purports to state that these are the same). Yet, the version of the infobox that you reverted to makes the mistake of confusing Show #6,835 with the 6,835th episode, by implying that 6,835 episodes were produced (and aired) when Show #6,835 was aired. Because the cited source (a photograph of a production call sheet posted to the official Jeopardy! web site) does not evidence the fact it is provided to show, it does not meet WP:V and fails. Apparently acknowledging this failing, a newer edit purports to relate that 6,829th episode aired June 13, 2014. This, also, is both factually incorrect and is not supported by the cited reference. The show that aired on June 13, 2014 was Show #6860, or the 6,795th episode produced. What was being reported in the cited news story was a Guinness records award presented to Alex Trebek, video of which presentation was included with Show #6860, aired June 13, 2014. There is no representation, however, in the news story or otherwise, that the 6,829th episode hosted by Alex Trebek was Show #6860, or even that the 6,829th episode hosted by Alex Trebek was the 6,829th episode produced in the Trebek era (both of these are factually false). The award presented to Alex Trebek by Guinness clearly read on its face, "The most gameshow episodes hosted by the same presenter (same program) is 6,829 by Alex Trebek on 'Jeopardy!' in Culver City, California, USA as of 17 April 2014". Setting aside for now the date discrepancy, which cannot simply be chalked up to the difference between tape dates and airdates, there is also the matter that Alex Trebek did not host Jeopardy! in one episode, the show aired April 1, 1997. Thus, whatever may be reported in the news story, it certainly does not prove that the 6,829th episode aired on June 13, 2014. Such would even be a mathematical impossibility, taking into account that June 13, 2014 was a Friday and because the show airs every weekday, the number would need to be a multiple of five. Respectfully, the only way to resolve the issues at hand are by giving them honest and thoughtful treatment, which includes reverence for basic arithmetic and use of the calendar. Editors who value honesty should to take into account all the evidence, and not simply conflate show numbers or number of games hosted by Alex with episodes produced as an easy but incorrect means of arriving at "a number, any number, so long as we can post a hyperlink to it". To insist that wrong information must be included simply because some news report somewhere can be misinterpreted as proving it is fundamentally dishonest, and I don't think that's what Wikipedia is about. Best, Robert K S (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The ABC news press release from 13 June 2014 meets WP:V and provides text which states Trebek is "marking his 6,829th hosting of the show" on the Friday episode. Your edit to this talk page provides no WP:V source that states "the show that aired on June 13, 2014 was Show #6860, or the 6,795th episode produced."
Using unsourced info that "Show #7000 aired February 6, 2015" and then manually subtracting an episode count based upon data in sources by Richmond and Eisenberg falls under WP:OR and does not meet WP:V. If you have a source that the episode airing 6 February 2015 is episode #7000 and the source meets WP:V, please change the infobox linking to the new source, update the episode count to 6,935 and also add links to other cited works using Template:Sfn and Template:Efn. AldezD (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Please point out where in the cited source it says that the show aired June 13, 2014 was the 6,829th episode. It doesn't actually say that. "Marking" a 6,829th hosting (in this case, by incorporating video of an awards presentation with an aired game) is not the same as the June 13, 2014 show being the 6,829th episode. Nor does the cited source claim that that the number of episodes hosted by Alex Trebek is the number of episodes produced, but your edit relies on a confusion of the two. You keep referring to it as a press release. Actually, it's a news story. I would note that, per the plain language of WP:V, the burden is on you, the adder or restorer of the controversial information, to show that 6,829th episode aired on June 13, 2014. Until you can do that, the information--which is plainly factually incorrect--should be removed. Robert K S (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to include an episode count of 6,935, the burden is on you to provide a source that the 6 February 2015 episode was the 7000th. Until then, use the number of 6,829 that is represented in the source linked or remove all episode counts for the version that began in 1984 until another source can be provided. Claiming that the episode which aired 6 February 2015 is the 7000th episode— without providing a source for that information—does not meet WP:V. AldezD (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's forget for the moment the information that I think is appropriate to include, and focus for now on what you want to include, since you're the most recent editor and it's the content of your edit that is both unsourced and patently false on its face. If you intend to include an episode count as of any date, it must be properly sourced. Right now, you've provided a news article that discusses a Trebek hosting record (not a number of episodes produced or aired) as of April 17, 2014 (not as of June 13, 2014) to allegedly evidence an episode count as of June 14, 2014. An odd-numbered episode count as of June 13, 2014 is obviously incorrect since that date was a Friday and an episode count as of a Friday would have to be evenly divisible by 5. WP:V isn't just about having a link to a news source generally considered reliable; it's about the cited source directly supporting the fact that you seek to include. Because the source doesn't report the fact you seek to include, it doesn't meet WP:V. Until you the proponent of this edit can prove that the obviously inaccurate information you seek to have included can be reliably sourced, it should be removed. When you're ready to talk sensibly about how to properly include accurate episode counts, then we can have that separate discussion. Robert K S (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
In my last edit to the talk page, I responded "Until then, use the number of 6,829 that is represented in the source linked or remove all episode counts for the version that began in 1984 until another source can be provided." If you do not agree with an episode count of 6,829, remove it and the linked source. However, do not include an episode count of 6,935 as of 6 February 2015 (7,000 – 65 reruns with new episode numbers) without providing a WP:V source that the episode which aired 6 February 2015 was the 7,000th. Suggesting that "It's neither unverified nor unreferenced for anyone capable of looking at a calendar and counting" as you did in this edit to my talk page—without first providing verified episode counts and/or start & end air dates for each season—is WP:OR does not meet WP:V. AldezD (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Essay on episode counts

Because I find absurd the confusion and controversy relating to reliably sourcing episode counts, I have written this essay:

User:Robert K S/Jeopardy! episode count

In a nutshell, routinely updating the episode count should not pose a problem, because all of the information needed to routinely calculate new episode counts is already reliably sourced in the article, and routine calculation is not, by definition, original research. Robert K S (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Episode count

Please stop removing instructions embedded in WP:COMMENT format regarding the episode count featured in the infobox. The comments—as well as the discussion in above sections of this article's talk page—are there to inform editors why certain figures are listed. AldezD (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The user-authored essay linked above is based upon manual WP:OR calculation of "calendar weekdays from the date of a show with a known show number." The essay goes into detail explaining the calculation methodology in User:Robert K S/Jeopardy! episode count#Season-end episode count computation, but again this calculation centers on WP:OR. No sources for a known show number have been presented in this issue discussion. No WP:V sources are presented showing season 2 consisted of 195 episodes, nor that subsequent seasons consisted of 230 episodes.
In the user essay, these facts are purported to be supported by Inside "Jeopardy!": What Really Goes on at TV's Top Quiz Show by Harry Eisenberg. However, that source is dated 1993, and does not account for nor verify any changes to production of the show (specifically, episode count) following the publication of that book. This is Jeopardy!: Celebrating America's Favorite Quiz Show, by Ray Richmond, is also used in the user essay as a source, but this source is dated 2004 and does not account for any changes to production following the book's publication. The essay also suggests to use The J! Archive as a source; however, this source is fan site and likely falls under WP:SELFPUB since the site is maintained by the author of the user essay on episode counts (see User:Robert K S#Likely areas of contribution, bullet #5). Because The J! Archive is not affiliated with production of the show and does not provide third-party validation as to the contents, there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. AldezD (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The sources are shown in the essay. Did you read it? Eisenberg is the source that shows that season 2 consisted of 195 episodes. Eisenberg, among other sources, shows that subsequent seasons consisted of 230 episodes. I suppose you're trying to argue that it's possible that seasons after 1993 (or 2004) didn't have 230 episodes; however, that supposition is your original research and is not based on any verifiable source. Given that the references state that seasons consist of 230 episodes, the burden is on you to provide some evidence to the contrary. (You will not be able to do so, however, because your supposition is factually incorrect.) Unless you can show otherwise, the references control. At this point, I welcome the involvement of some unbiased third-party arbitration on this matter. When article editors take positions that deny inclusion of information from verifiable sources and dispute basic counting principles, argument has devolved into absurdity. Robert K S (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I might also point out that for any editor sincerely looking for a more recent authoritative mention of the show's 230-episode season, Alex Trebek discusses it in a May 16, 2014 Nerdist podcast. Robert K S (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I've raised this dispute on what I hope is the appropriate noticeboard here. Robert K S (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it recorded ?

I can't find anything in the article about this, just stuff about the finished product as broadcast, which is presumably somewhat different to what happens in the studio. Are episodes recorded in batches (i.e. multiple per day) or one per day ? How long does an episode take to record ? What time of day is it recorded ? How big is the studio audience and how do they get in ? Delay between recording and broadcast ? What's in it for most contestants, who would appear to make nothing out of it after travel, accommodation & expenses are factored against small winnings ? What does the studio audience actually see happening ? Does stuff happen in the recording that doesn't get broadcast ? Rcbutcher (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Episodes are typically recorded five per day, two days per week. Three shows are recorded before lunch and another two after lunch. Thus, two weeks' worth of shows are recorded in a single week. Shows are taped in more-or-less real time with only short breaks where the commercial advertisements are inserted. There is about a 3-month delay between when the shows are recorded and when they air. There is audience seating for 130 in four bays of seats of 25, 35, 35, and 35 seats each, but the house doesn't always fill up, and on most days the 25-seat bank is reserved for the players who are there to tape that day. The studio audience enters the soundstage through a door near the back, and they are led in to be seated twice a day, once in the morning and once after lunch, after first getting on the Sony lot and then lining up outside the soundstage. Consolation prizes are $1,000 and $2,000 for third and second place, respectively, during regular play, and challengers must pay for their own travel and accommodations as well has paying California game show tax and other applicable income taxes on winnings. For most contestants, the incentive is the thrill of playing the game and appearing on television, along with the chance, even if not realized, of winning big money. The studio audience gets to see the flubs and fixes that one would expect of taping a television program. Occasionally the game needs to be stopped for a technical reason or for the producers to consult and make a ruling on an unanticipated response. Alex frequently makes mistakes in his clue narrations that require re-recording, which is done on the spot during the breaks. I hope this answers some of your questions, but not all of this information would necessarily improve the article. If you're looking for sourcing, I recommend setting up a Google Alert on "Jeopardy!" to receive the frequent local news articles that interview contestants, wherein much of this information is likely to be repeated many times over the course of a year--well, all but the seating capacity, which I counted from pictures available on the web: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Robert K S (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This is precisely the type of information that should be in the article : Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and hence ought to include all the background stuff : that is its whole point, to go beyond the superficial. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I note that Richmond states (p. 147) that the studio has audience seating for 140, but this number is not correct now, if it ever was, as it would require that first bank of seats to have 35 seats, when it is countable from photographs as having 25 seats. It is possible that the top ten seats in the bank used to be there when Richmond wrote the book in 2004, but were subsequently removed to accommodate technical staff with monitors at the top of the risers. Robert K S (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

2 sources

This Nerdist Podcast with Alex Trebek and this Onion AV Club interview with Jeopardy! head writer Billy Wisse may helpful to source some of the above detail. Robert K S (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeopardy!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Jeopardy in other countries

I think this line needs expanding:

Jeopardy! has also gained a worldwide following with regional adaptations in many other countries.

What other countries have had versions of Jeopardy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.250.219 (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It's already included in Jeopardy! broadcast information#International adaptations. AldezD (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Audio Format

The article in the audio format says Stereo. The correct result is Art Fleming's version was in mono. The Trebek run is in stereo. A WP mod said there is no source. Well, prior to 1984, all show's have mono sound. So I think the audio format needs to be corrected.ACMEWikiNet (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You need sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS. AldezD (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
TV SERIES TO BE BROADCAST IN STERO, Chicago Tribune, Nov. 11, 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEWikiNet (talk • contribs) 12:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The NYT article is dated 1984 and states "Within the next year or two…Television sets will have built-in stereo speakers." This is not definitive evidence that episodes of Jeopardy! produced in or after 1984 used stereo sound. While stereo speakers were available on television sets later, it does not provide WP:V detail that the program was produced with stereo sound, just as not all television shows were produced in HD once HDTVs became available. AldezD (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, can we revise the infobox to make sure it is 100% sourced!? ACMEWikiNet (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

j-archive is WP:RS

I'm posting as IP, since I don't want to associate my WP editor account with my multiday Jeopardy championship.

There is not a single source of information on the entire Internet that is more accurate in regards to contestants, clues, and amounts won. It does not matter that you consider it a "fansite"; that is nonsensical since it clearly is carefully researched and documented. Only people who care about the topic would be so thorough.

If anyone can point out any significant errors or bias on j-archive, go ahead, but otherwise, I am going to start citing it as RS. 107.188.28.209 (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

A fansite, with no independent sources showing validity or verification content, does not meet WP:RS. The J-Archive is a fansite, is not affiliated with the production of the show, and should not be used as a reference in this article. If you are referencing information that occurred on a specific episode of Jeopardy!, use Template:Cite episode. AldezD (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, J-Archive has been noted as an unacceptable source in two previous discussions (1, 2) AldezD (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Those discussions do NOT say it is not RS. 1 says it is an objective compilation like the CIA factbook. I am detecting a long simmering wikifeud over this - maybe we should arb it. 107.188.19.95 (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the same can be said of Fikkle Fame. Andy Saunders (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

7,500 episodes

Please stop changing the num_episodes value in the infobox to 7,500 without adding an appropriate WP:V source. The current source tagged to that number, <ref name="Jeopardy 7000th Episode minisite"/>, does not provide WP:V count of 7,500 episodes. AldezD (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit changing the count to 7500 appears to have cited a WP:PRIMARY source (the March 31, 2017 episode), which appears to be an acceptable use. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop changing episode counts associated with a ref tagged to the Jeopardy! 7,000 site. When updating the count, remove the current ref add a new ref or use Template:Cite Episode. Stating Trebek mentioned the milestone without using a ref or the template does not meet WP:V. AldezD (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jeopardy!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The only?

"...is the only post-1960 game show to be honored with the Peabody Award."

and

"...it holds the distinction of being the only game show since 1960 to win the Peabody Award."

Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? won that award about two decades earlier. Or are we not including children's shows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GVO8891 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll remove the "only" information from the article.
GVO8891 (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Short-lived alternate endgame

During the 1978-1979 run ("The All-New Jeopardy!"), a different endgame was used in place of Final Jeopardy. You can see that endgame at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtDPxZZdFwM ; seems like this short-lived variation deserves at least a mention in the Gameplay section -- Heath 184.170.76.239 (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Jeopardy! broadcast information#The All-New Jeopardy! (1978–79). AldezD (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, duh. I didn't see it there. Thanks. 184.170.76.239 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Host and announcer

The article uses the terms "host" and "announcer" several times, but never defines them. The "Gameplay" section mentions what the host does, but not what the announcer does. I have linked these terms to game show host and announcer, but their functions still aren't clear. Can someone clarify? --Macrakis (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary WP:OVERLINK. These have been removed. AldezD (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The article still doesn't say what the role of the "announcer" is. The article should be understandable by someone who has never seen this show (or for that matter any other game show). The article talks about who the announcers have been, but never says what they do. --Macrakis (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTDICTIONARY. It's a common term both in vocabulary and in the realm of television. It is not necessary to link to announcer to understand content of this article. AldezD (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This is not a vocabulary issue, this is an encyclopedic question. The article simply doesn't say what the role of the announcer is in the gameplay. The article needs to be written in such a way that someone who has never seen Jeopardy! or any other game show can understand what it's talking about. The game show host article clearly says that the "host manages a game show, introduces contestants, and asks quiz questions to test the knowledge of said contestants". Right now, we have no corresponding description of the function of the announcer in this article or in the generic announcer or game show articles. In fact, the game show article doesn't mention announcers at all, and the announcer article doesn't mention game shows at all. We don't even know whether the announcer appears on-screen or is a voice-over. --Macrakis (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The vast majority of game show articles do not link to the Wiki article for announcer. The announcer isn't mentioned in gameplay because he has no role in that segment of the show. Overall, the announcer's role in this program is inconsequential to understanding the core topic. But, put the links back in if you want. I won't remove them again. You're free to add content here you feel is missing, and to address directly in the announcer and game show articles the concerns you note above. AldezD (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
If the announcer is so inconsequential, why does the article talk about the announcers at all? Does the announcer present the prizes? Does the announcer introduce the contestants? Does the announcer run the timer? Does the announcer have the same role in Jeopardy as in other game shows? I don't know the answers, so I'm not the right person to add the information! --Macrakis (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You're adding a link to announcer, but your activity does not address the concerns in your post above. You're simply adding a link then walking away from an issue you personally have identified.
If you're going to state a concern overall about what role an announcer performs—but then not engage in developing the solution to your proposed concern—it's better to post your concern at Talk:Announcer or Wikipedia:WikiProject Television rather than WP:OVERLINK an article and then add comments to an individual article's talk page. If you have a concern specific to the announcer of Jeopardy!, start a topic here with the comments akin to "Does the announcer present the prizes? Does the announcer introduce the contestants? Does the announcer run the timer? Does the announcer have the same role in Jeopardy as in other game shows? I don't know the answers, but could another editor help?" rather than WP:OVERLINK an article and walk away. This will start a discussion that improves the overall article. AldezD (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
As for the announcer on Jeopardy!, historically the announcer introduces the challengers followed by the returning champion, stating the champion's total winnings thus far. The announcer then introduces the host. Throughout the show, the announcer provides voice-overs during lead-ins to and exits from a commercial break. Additional duties include announcing any consolation prizes offered and fee plugs for sponsors of the show. Prior to taping, the announcer handles warm-up duties, exciting the crowd prior to the commencement of taping. AldezD (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Please look at my original post in this thread. I did in fact explicitly ask that someone clarify the functions of the host and the announcer. I agree with you that the link is not a substitute for additional information in either this article or in the announcer article, but it is nonetheless appropriate. --Macrakis (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Added description of duties. AldezD (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Potential Addition to the Page.

I think it would be a good idea to have a box by all the stats displaying the current champion, the number of games won, and their cash winnings. ThatOneDude11 (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTSTATS. AldezD (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Covid 19 Pandemic

Does anyone think there should be something added about the show currently not being produced due to the pandemic? I think it has to do with production and would be a good addition to the article. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Verb tense and passive voice

Please stop adding content using passive voice, which is inconsistent with the verb tense used throughout the article. This is not in line with MOS:VERB, which states: "By default, write articles in the present tense... However, articles about periodicals that are no longer being produced should normally, and with commonsense exceptions, use the past tense."

Additionally, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Clarity#Use of the passive voice recommends "that it be used sparingly".

"Was announced" is passive voice. "An April 2021 announcement listed" is written in the past tense.

Please follow WP guidelines.

Thank you. AldezD (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:VERB doesn't really have anything to do with this issue- that is more 'past vs. present' than 'anything vs. passive' (Such as how a president is still a president, even when no longer serving as president- or a television show still exists even when it has ended). Also note how it says, "Generally, do not use past tense except for past events..."- the announcement is a past event, as when it was first announced, it is no longer still being 'first' announced today, it's a past announcement. This also applies to where it says, "Tense can be used to distinguish between current and former status of a subject"- the subject would be the announcement, we are not saying, "The announcement is saying..." or anything like that.
Also, as I noted in my edit summary, apparently the previous sentence ("Between January and February 2021, additional guest hosts were announced...") is still fine though?... The word 'was' is simply changed to 'were' there, but that's somehow not problematic? It seems like you're picking and choosing what you want to be against at this point.
I'd assume that if the previous sentence is fine as I just said above, then, "The final group of season 37 guest hosts was announced in April 2021, including:..." should be fine too? Magitroopa (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to re-state details in the guidelines already presented above. You clearly feel strongly against another editor making a simple WP:ME changing verb tenses to align with MOS. Then you revert to the original edit. If you revert the change again I'm not going to undo it. Have a great day. AldezD (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
First off, I already explained why this isn't an MOS:VERB issue, so I'm not exactly sure why you're saying you won't restate the details of the guidelines... That specific guideline seemingly has nothing to do with this issue.
Also, why all the reverts on here and then finally coming here to discuss? After you were initially reverted you should've come here first instead of edit warring, as I warned you on your talk page. I highly suggest you follow WP:BRD in the future. And how exactly does it help to come here and say you won't discuss the issue any further? I'm perfectly willing to discuss this, but how is doing all these reverts, finally coming here, and then deciding, "I won't revert anymore, goodbye" beneficial at all? It also appears you're ignoring some parts of what I've said, such as you being fine with the previous 'were announced' sentence, but wanting to keep reverting/rephrasing the 'was announced' sentence. Also worth noting that this revert is a lot more than a 'simple minor edit'- reverting the source, another part in a different section someone else added, and adding duplicate information (specifically regarding Bialik and Whitaker who were already mentioned in the previous sentence), which all led to a few edits that had to readd the information you removed, as well as remove the duplicate information you added in.
Please, I am seriously perfectly fine to discuss the issue and come to whatever solution, whether it be either of us misunderstanding something or a better rephrasing of the sentences altogether, but you need to be more cooperative and constructive rather than an, "I don't like this phrasing/verb tense" followed by multiple reverts to your preferred phrasing. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say I won't discuss it further. I said I won't re-state the guidelines above because doing that is not productive in swaying you to consider them and to use consistent verb tense throughout the article. Regarding "all the reverts," I reverted re-addition of passive voice verb tense once and broke up a run-on twice. When new info was later added 21 April, I changed passive voice to another verb tense. That was not a revert.
You on the other hand have a pattern of reverting and accusing others of edit warring. You have been blocked for edit warring in the past. You are also perfectly capable of beginning the discussion on a talk page. But instead, you assume bad faith, revert, flail wildly in edit summaries stating it was "perfectly fine" the way it was, then template me on my talk page. This is not constructive behavior.
The tone of your reply demonstrates that you're worked up over something that I've already identified is WP:ME. I said I won't undo it again. Regarding me "being fine with the previous 'were announced' sentence", I would change it. But you'll revert it, and then it's back into the same loop. It's not productive since you'll revert the WP:ME anyway, so why take that action or make the case for it?
Editing Wikipedia is a hobby. It's not going to change the world. Perhaps you should focus your attention on why another user changing a verb tense results in such an acrimonious reaction for you. That may be a more productive use of your time. Or, you could follow your own suggestion of using WP:BRD in the future. Cheers. AldezD (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and guest hosts

Presenter parameter in Template:Infobox television is for "The show's presenters or hosts. Presenters are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new presenters joined the show. Years or seasons should not be included." Temporary/guest hosts are not included, similarly to how guest hosts are not included in the infobox for The Tonight Show. Please stop adding guest hosts to the Jeopardy! article infobox. AldezD (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

With the recent news from today regarding Mike being picked as host, I would suggest we wait until the official announcement is released before adding in any information about who the permanent host ends up being. At this point, these articles seem to just be 'what a insider source is saying' and reads off like it could certainly change. Might (?) be worth mentioning the initial reporting from today when the official announcement news is put out, but don't think we need to add this current info in at the moment. As the Deadline article says, "Sony Pictures Television is expected to make an official announcement in the next few days."- I think we can wait... Magitroopa (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree "Advanced Negotiations to Become Permanent Host"≠"being picked as host". Wait until official announcement from WP:V source he has accepted offer. AldezD (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Might be fine to put in now (as long as it's worded properly...), but seems like we might have the official announcement coming soon. [15] Magitroopa (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Aaand updated. Magitroopa (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Just added the information regarding Richards + Bialik to the lead as best as I could. Don't think we need to include the citation here per MOS:LEADCITE. Also just saying that one of the previous sentences in that lead paragraph ("A series of interim hosts are currently moderating...") can probably be updated on Friday, once the guest hosts/season has concluded. Magitroopa (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Mayim Bialik

Have there been any "special episodes of the show" hosted by anyone other than Fleming or Trebek? If so, those hosts should either be included or Bialik removed for consistency IMO. Bahooka (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but none to my knowledge. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a new thing invented by the show's owners. Prior to this, the only thing that comes to mind is an April Fool's Day show when Trebek and Pat Sajak switched places in hosting Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Mike Richards in infobox

Should Mike be included in the infobox as an official presenter? Granted, he was officially announced as one of the permanent hosts, but I think this should be contingent upon whether he is introduced as such (vs. as a "guest host") when his episodes air in September. Personally, I think his name should be removed from the infobox until we know for sure. --Bp0413 (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If he taped episodes as host after being named permanent host, keep him in even though "he resigned". AldezD (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
IMHO it might be best to wait & see how his episodes are aired in September (we know they will be airing currently), but I do think they could easily redub it. I'm fine with his name staying in the infobox and then removing it based on when his episodes do air (or vice versa, removing his name now and then readding it based on when his episodes do air) but either way, I think the final consensus would likely come when his episodes do air... also keep in mind that we don't need to immediately decide now... if the premiere date (September 13) isn't changed even with all this production craziness going in right now, it is less than a month away from the premiere date. Magitroopa (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
In the Alex Trebek days, Johnny would overdub the morning show intros after someone else had done the initial intros. That way, Johnny only had to be there for the afternoon tapings. What with COVID, he might be doing all of them that way now. In any case, unless there's some advance info from a reliable source, the only way to know for sure is to wait and see how Johnny introduces him when the shows air. And even though his "permanent" slot only lasted a week (one day's worth of tapings), then for now he should be in the infobox, for completeness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
And for those who didn't see the first show of the new season, Richards was announced as "Host", not "Guest host". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
None of your observations about announcers dubbing voiceovers or words used to refer to the host are referenced. It's not "the only way to know for sure". Richards was the host of five shows before he was fired, and that detail is referenced in the article. AldezD (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I could look for where I read that, if you're interested. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
It's buried in this article.[16] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
And Mayim Bialik today was likewise introduced as "Host", not "Guest host". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
...which has been referenced in section #Hosts and announcers since 8/23/21: "Mayim Bialik, Ken Jennings to Host Jeopardy Through 2021 After Mike Richards’ Exit". AldezD (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Were those sources privy to how they were actually announced on-air? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Announcers using terms "on-air" do not alter how Bialik is referenced as "host" in a WP:V citation titled "Mayim Bialik, Ken Jennings to Host ‘Jeopardy’ Through 2021 After Mike Richards’ Exit". AldezD (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no better source than the show itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there are—the sources already linked in the article that meet WP:V. AldezD (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
And where did those allegedly valid sources get their information? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Certainly not from the announcer's copy/spoken word. The sources follow WP:V. AldezD (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The only place your so-called source could have gotten it is from the show. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

From the production team of the show—not from what the announcer or his copy says. I don't know or understand why you are calling a reference which meets WP:V "so-called". AldezD (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Which would be precisely where Johnny Gilbert gets it from. But if he said "guest host", that would override your source. But he didn't so it doesn't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't override a WP:V source. AldezD (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Jennings and Bialik

Why are they listed in the infobox when other guest hosts are not listed Lunacats (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Because they are hosts of the program per the WP:V sources already in the article. Jeopardy!#Hosts and announcers, "Jeopardy!: Mike Richards To Host Syndicated Show, Mayim Bialik To Host Primetime & Spinoff Series", "Mayim Bialik, Ken Jennings to Host Jeopardy Through 2021 After Mike Richards’ Exit". AldezD (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia Recording

I just wanted to let everyone know that I have started working on a Spoken Wikipedia recording. Thanks! Camshaft64 (Talk | Contributions) 20:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have finished working on the Spoken Wikipedia recording and added it to this article. The version of the article I recorded is slightly outdated now (November 24, 2021), but it should still be relevant. Thanks! Camshaft64 (Talk | Contributions) 00:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Top "X" List

I haven't seen a top 10 list (pick any cut-off you wish) anywhere in the jeopardy articles.........main page, notable contestants, etc. We speak about all these great contestants, but nowhere do I see a list of top regular game dollar winners, top all-game dollar winners, most consecutive game winners etc.BumbleBum (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds a bit trivial to me. Anyone looking for something like than can go here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeopardy!/Archive_3&oldid=1136840470"